Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Support CaB

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

March 28, 2024, 03:31:55 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Films which you just cannot like, even though you think you should.

Started by wasp_f15ting, December 15, 2010, 10:13:08 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Johnny Townmouse

Quote from: Ignatius_S on December 17, 2010, 03:03:46 PM
Britain doesn't really have the same sort of tradition of gangster films as in America and I would say it's more of a recent trend.. particularly of not very good films.
They're obvious examples, but I would also put in Get Carter and Villain as good British gangster films. I don't know if Mona Lisa really counts, but I would also add that.
I very much like Gangster No.1 – Bettany was great as you say, and I thought it was well done with McDowell as the older Gangster.

I'm not much of a fan of Get Carter, nor I'll Sleep When I'm Dead. I think the British gangster film works best when it subverts American gangster tropes and instead tries to do unpleasant, social-realist tinged character pieces. That's why I like those aforementioned films so much, and why I despise so much contemporary British gangster movies, even ones like Layer Cake that people are amenable to.

I can't imagine Bettany bettering Gangster No.1, it is a really understated performance that seethes with menace. The scene where he watches the couple getting killed in his rear view mirror is fantastic. I like how unflinchingly graphic the violence is, in a way that evokes a film like Scum more than contemporary torture porn. McDowell is great in it, but I have to say that it is once again the fabulous Thewlis who almost steals the show for me.

Tiny Poster

Quote from: Ignatius_S on December 17, 2010, 03:03:46 PM
Britain doesn't really have the same sort of tradition of gangster films as in America and I would say it's more of a recent trend.. particularly of not very good films.

Isn't the recent trend (past decade or more) a revival of the 60s UK gangster genre though?

Zetetic

Quote from: VegaLA on December 15, 2010, 11:49:27 PM
Solaris.
I'm now fairly convinced this is because the actual story, and indeed pretty much of all of Lem's work, is pretty rubbish with the odd nice line. I keep meaning to retry Tarkovsky's version but I'm not sure that I have the patience or self-hatred for it.

Harpo Speaks

Quote from: Pedro_Bear on December 17, 2010, 02:05:55 PM
Or just offing a happy lesbian relationship for no good reason other than to have lesbians in the film it seems, V for Vendetta I'm pointing at you. And no, you didn't redeem yourself by insinutaing V was the other woman. Well, maybe. And yeah, Natalie Portman cosplaying for the paedophile was good cinema... alright, you're off the hook. Just.

That particular bit is in the comic though isn't it, which justifies its presence in the film at least.

Dark Sky

Quote from: Ignatius_S on December 17, 2010, 02:55:17 PM
As a project, arguably it's a compromise - failed TV pilot adapted for film, which I think showed.

Although well-received, it did get get some high-profile criticial kicking. In terms of punters, I don't think I've really met anyone who hates it, but I can't say I've met any who truly think it's a great film.

I think it's great!  So atmospheric and dreamy with some stunning set pieces.  INLAND EMPIRE kinda makes it seem like a tame little kitty though.

Never thought about it as being homophobic, though...  Obviously it compares and contrasts the glossy, cheesy, ridiculously OTT fantasy "random lezzing up" scene within the first section's dreamworld with the more real, more seedy, tinged with anger, hatred and resentment lesbian relationship in the "real" section...

The trouble is, I see someone complaining about a work of fiction not letting a gay couple live and be happy, and I get flashbacks of rabid Jack/Ianto fans hurling death threats at the writers of Torchwood.

Flandre

I'm glad Tara Maclay got killed off. Kids have to learn that being gay equates to misery and pain sooner or later.

Quote from: El Unicornio, mang on December 17, 2010, 08:54:51 AM
Can someone explain the point of Rat Catcher to me? It was recommnded to me by a few people but I found it depressing, tedious, at times unintelligable and just pointless.
You've nailed it? That was the kid's life. Doesn't make for repeat viewing, but that's also the point.

Dead kate moss

Quote from: Pedro_Bear on December 17, 2010, 02:05:55 PMOr just offing a happy lesbian relationship for no good reason other than to have lesbians in the film it seems, V for Vendetta I'm pointing at you. And no, you didn't redeem yourself by insinutaing V was the other woman. Well, maybe. And yeah, Natalie Portman cosplaying for the paedophile was good cinema... alright, you're off the hook. Just.

The movie/comic didn't insinuate V was the other woman. The point was that all the weirdoes were rounded up, including V and the lesbian. V is in the cell next to her and she tells him her story, via letters pushed through the wall. V later tricks Evey into thinking she is in such a death camp, and gives her the letters, the only 'real thing' about the experience. We are also shown that the the zombie-like drone we had seen earlier in the movie is the woman we have just seen to be in a happy lesbian relationship. For the purposes of the movie, there is absolutely no grounds for saying the lesbian relationship was gratuitous.

Pedro_Bear

It was the fake gay-for-pay lesbians presented by Mulholland Drive as much as the inevitable fate of their relationship that prevents me from crediting it as a Lynch film. They were lesbians for the sake of his mid-life crisis, much like the satire in the Patrick Stewart episode of Extras, but for real. The dreamspeak "There's sometimes a buggy" and the nightmare sequence with the homeless guy reveal were all decent Lynch, but come on. Would he have made the same central theme casting naive young men? Or a heterosexual couple? No, because he couldn't jack off to it afterwards with a penis on screen.

The situation at the moment is quite clear outside of pink cinema (although we'd be hard pressed to find exceptions in sinister agenda films these days):

A young character can be homosexual if they are single. Presumably because they won't be having disgusting homosexual sex off-screen all the time, or conversely, the show gets to demonstrate that they are having sex all the time on-screen, because obviously that's what empowered gays do, normal people.

If they enter into a relationship, it is short-term only. It usually ends dramatically when either their partner or they cheat on each other on-screen, or they have some sort of over the top domestic incident. Because gays turn into middle-aged married couples the moment they move in with each other, and, check this, they have relationship issues similar to normal heterosexual people too, don't you know? You didn't know that, did you? Now you do. In case you forget, you'll be reminded each and every time a gay couple appears on screen.

If they ever fall in love, and their love is returned, either their partner or they must die. Because FUCK YOU GAYS. The exceptions for youthful characters are far and few between (name three), and almost never female (name one).


I'm not making this up, this isn't a subjective, forced interpretation after the event. It's just what's out there, that's all. Gay characters are rarely incidental or represented naturalistically. Lesbians in particular are present in plots soley for prurient reasons, or to be tragically killed, more often than not to demonstrate how wrong a baddie is by revealing how homophobic they are, where offing a member of a male gay partnership might still accidentally reveal how homophobic an audience is and not achieve the desired motif.

I admit it's a whole lot better than homosexuality being portrayed negatively each and every time, and it'll hopefully get addressed better as time passes. No big deal. It's just tv. And cinema. And computer games. And novels. And comics. Hardly worth mentioning. WhatevarrR[nb]RRRRRGGGGHHHHH I CAN'T GET THE CAP OF MY PILLS. WILLOW ROSENBERG AND TARA MACLAY WERE TELEVISON'S FIRST CARE-FREE LESBIAN COUPLE. THEY WERE POPULAR, SYMPATHETIC KEY CHARACTERS ON A VERY SUCCESSFUL SHOW WITH A BROAD AUDIENCE. THEIR ON-SCREEN RELATIONSHIP DIDN'T FEEL LIKE IT HAD BEEN CROW-BARRED INTO THE SCRIPT. NOR DID THEY BANG ON AND ON AND ON ABOUT IT ALL THE TIME, AS IF IT WAS A TWO-DIMENSIONAL SELLING POINT FOR THE SHOW. INDEED THEY WERE MODEST WITHOUT BEING APOLOGETIC OR EMBARRASSED.

It was like two ordinary, everyday television characters had met and fallen in love with each other. It was almost as if something similar could happen to ordinary, everyday people. Fuck that. That shit is wrong. Thank Goddess they killed of Tara tragically to address how seriously fucked up and low the ratings The Evildoers were stooping, eh?

Luckily they brought slutty, heterosexual, daddy-issues Faith back from the dead a few hundred thousand times to reinforce the more positive role-models in the series. And then chucked in lipstick lesbian overtones with her character to stick the boot in for good measure. What a pity the spin off series didn't happen, eh?[/nb]







Famous Mortimer

QuoteI would love it if Nolan had a female writing partner, I think it could inject some soul into his characters and complement his technically impressive direction and story plotting amazingly.
I just don't see why he should try and make his films less interesting (in other words, more like every other film being made). And I'm not sure why his writing partner should be female? Anyway.

QuoteObviously in Inception you also have Ellen Page, wasted, as a cardboard plot driver
I understand why she has to be in the film, but I won't fight on "cardboard". As far as criticising her character for driving the plot...would you rather she'd not been in it and it'd have been half an hour longer without her there to drive the plot along? Isn't the job of all characters in films to move the plot along, to a greater or lesser extent?

QuoteNow you just sound a bit petulant, which is a shame.  I believe there is a lot to enjoy about Inception, but I still think it could be so much better.
Petulant? You did make disparaging comparisons to Transformers, Van Helsing and Doctor Who! You did say a film you liked was two-dimensional, mindless and superficial! I didn't call you a hyperbole-flinger, did I? I think if you're starting point is "it's no better, really, than one of the worst films of the last decade" then it precludes a lot of sensible debate. But I'm the one being petulant.
Quoteexcept The Dark Knight Does a Fart or whatever it's called...
which leads me to suspect that Nolan has never met a woman...
or - blasphemy! - perhaps isn't a particularly good writer...
made up on the spur of the moment to advance the plot...

QuoteI feel your reaction here is a knee-jerk one, using my criticism against something I've said I like
I mentioned Being John Malkovich in this thread before, and I think it's a bit of a crappy thing to say that I'm pretending not to like something in order to use it in an argument.

QuoteBut although you get glimpses of them, they're always cold, impenetrable objects, confusing and unpredictable, darting out of reach, infuriating.  It's worrying. 
Carrie-Anne Moss isn't really that in Memento. Her arc is a bit tricky to understand because of the way the film works, but she's very...penetrable. The love interests in the Batman films aren't really that either. I'll give you Cotillard, though, but then you see it as a negative, I see it as a positive. Sometimes, women really are like that though. Give me this over the "ha ha, men are fucking useless infants" ending of Being John Malkovich any day.

QuoteI think it's a shame that a lot of people credit Inception with a level of sophistication which it doesn't have.
A level of sophistication you don't think it has. As much as I hate appeals to authority, there are a great number of people whose opinions differ to yours. Why are they all wrong and you're right? Not an asshole question, your comment seems objective and I'm genuinely interested. You can think the film is sophisticated and still not like it, you know.

You sum up the plot of the rest of Nolan's films fairly well. You see cold and unemotional, I see fascinating, thoughtful, well-made films. The reason I wrote in my last post that there wasn't much point to continuing is that I know how these debates go - we both entered with our opinions fully formed, and the only thing this debate has done is made us more stern in those opinions. Sound about right? I've got enough time to kill (obviously) to say why I like a film, but other than that...

Although, saying that, I realise I haven't done a lot of actually saying why I like the film. I think it uses the tropes of the heist movie in a way they've never been used before, which considering they've been around for 60 years or so is no small achievement. It gives the viewer puzzles to think about while the action is going on, and the action is pretty damn good - Joseph Gordon-Levitt's scene is obviously the standout, but there's the final assault and the car chase too. I mean, its puzzles aren't up there with a film like Primer but then that film didn't have to go through eighteen layers of film-studio bullshit. In terms of the cinematic mainstream it's signficantly better than anyone has a right to expect in 2010, with endless remakes and reboots and reimaginings. I've always kinda liked DiCaprio, but while he was better in Shutter Island than he was in this, it's not his best work. JGL and Tom Hardy are both brilliant though, and Cillian Murphy nailed what he had.

samadriel

Quote from: Famous Mortimer on December 18, 2010, 08:50:18 AM
A level of sophistication you don't think it has.
It's a fair cop though.  Inception, sophisticated?  What?  Where?

El Unicornio, mang

Re; Collitard's character not having much depth, keep in mind that it is DiCaprio's projection of her, not how she actually was, that we mostly see.

Dark Sky

Quote from: Pedro_Bear on December 18, 2010, 01:07:02 AMI'm not making this up, this isn't a subjective, forced interpretation after the event. It's just what's out there, that's all. Gay characters are rarely incidental or represented naturalistically. Lesbians in particular are present in plots soley for prurient reasons, or to be tragically killed, more often than not to demonstrate how wrong a baddie is by revealing how homophobic they are, where offing a member of a male gay partnership might still accidentally reveal how homophobic an audience is and not achieve the desired motif.

I admit it's a whole lot better than homosexuality being portrayed negatively each and every time, and it'll hopefully get addressed better as time passes. No big deal. It's just tv. And cinema. And computer games. And novels. And comics. Hardly worth mentioning. WhatevarrR[nb]RRRRRGGGGHHHHH I CAN'T GET THE CAP OF MY PILLS. WILLOW ROSENBERG AND TARA MACLAY WERE TELEVISON'S FIRST CARE-FREE LESBIAN COUPLE. THEY WERE POPULAR, SYMPATHETIC KEY CHARACTERS ON A VERY SUCCESSFUL SHOW WITH A BROAD AUDIENCE. THEIR ON-SCREEN RELATIONSHIP DIDN'T FEEL LIKE IT HAD BEEN CROW-BARRED INTO THE SCRIPT. NOR DID THEY BANG ON AND ON AND ON ABOUT IT ALL THE TIME, AS IF IT WAS A TWO-DIMENSIONAL SELLING POINT FOR THE SHOW. INDEED THEY WERE MODEST WITHOUT BEING APOLOGETIC OR EMBARRASSED.

Hmm.  I've heard this so many times, but I don't get it.  Heterosexual couples in fiction have the same things happen to them all the time as well.  They have relationships which don't work, which fall apart, where everything's going great then one of them dies...  It's standard drama storytelling, I guess, and I really don't see it as being some kind of grand level of homophobia.  There are films and TV shows out there which do depict gay characters who "make it", so it's hardly like it's a completely unknown commodity.

I certainly don't see it as a reason to not enjoy a film as wonderful, distinctive and atmospheric as Mulholland Drive.

Quote from: Famous Mortimer on December 18, 2010, 08:50:18 AM
I just don't see why he should try and make his films less interesting (in other words, more like every other film being made). And I'm not sure why his writing partner should be female? Anyway.

Well, I think it would make the film more interesting if there was some kind of emotional attachment to the characters.  And I suggest a female writing partner because a woman is more naturally inclined to be able to write female characters!  I know that's not always the case, and maybe he would find a male writing partner who would be able to write more engaging characters.  Stranger things have happened!

QuoteI understand why she has to be in the film, but I won't fight on "cardboard". As far as criticising her character for driving the plot...would you rather she'd not been in it and it'd have been half an hour longer without her there to drive the plot along? Isn't the job of all characters in films to move the plot along, to a greater or lesser extent?

No, of course!  I wasn't saying she shouldn't have been there, I was just putting in a pre-defence re: my argument that all of Nolan's female characters are distant objects.  Obviously she is very much part of the film and the action, but she might as well have been a man, or a robot, or a small puppy on a skateboard or something.  Actually that might instantly have improved the film.

QuotePetulant? You did make disparaging comparisons to Transformers, Van Helsing and Doctor Who!

I love Doctor Who!  The Transformers one was perhaps a bit unfair, but the way the "rules" of the universe Nolan created changed every two minutes did remind me a lot of Van Helsing.  I can't remember any examples from the film now, though, I'm sorry, I'll have to watch it again.  I'd actually quite like to watch it again considering how much I've argued about it with many people!

QuoteYou did say a film you liked was two-dimensional, mindless and superficial!

I like loads of films which are two-dimensional, mindless and superficial.  I love Freddy vs Jason, I think it's fantastic.  I enjoy that film as much as I enjoy watching a Tarkovsky, or whatever.  It appeals in a different way, and I understand what it's trying to do and I know it's done its job successfully!

I just see the cracks in Inception, and I think - like a lot of Nolan's films - it isn't quite doing what it's set out to do.

QuoteI think if you're starting point is "it's no better, really, than one of the worst films of the last decade" then it precludes a lot of sensible debate.

My starting point was, "I think this is a brilliantly entertaining film, but it is only a 'popcorn' movie, and to attribute it with any depth is misleading from what it is". 

QuoteI think it's a bit of a crappy thing to say that I'm pretending not to like something in order to use it in an argument.

I apologise, but you jumped down my throat quite sharply and it seemed a bit defensive!  Seriously, sorry.  You will notice that I did agree with you, of course ;)

QuoteSometimes, women really are like that though.

All women I know are wonderful, lovely people!  Sometimes I think that Nolan should stop obsessing over emotionless beauties and get to know them as people.

QuoteA level of sophistication you don't think it has. As much as I hate appeals to authority, there are a great number of people whose opinions differ to yours. Why are they all wrong and you're right?

Because I am!

Or rather, this is my opinion of the film.  And I'm discussing it with you, whose opinion is different.  I'm not out to change your mind and make you admit, "OKAY it's crap!  YOU WIN!".  I'd be quite upset if that happened, to be honest!

QuoteYou can think the film is sophisticated and still not like it, you know.

I really don't think it is, though.  I admit it is - for an action film, yes!  But then you don't want me to compare it to other action films?  I dunno, I think it's trying to be sophisticated, but it just depresses me because it's not.  And maybe that is being arrogant and awful, but I've just found his work so cold and emotionless and dour that I can't like it.

This is, after all, the thread about films you cannot like, even though you think you should.  I think I should love Inception, but I don't.  I don't get it.  I don't see it.  I had a film studies student rage at me that with this film Nolan had entered a new visual plain allowing future filmmakers to be able to think of the camera lens as a canvas and it just made me want to scream "BOLLOCKS!!!!"

It just irritates me.  I think that's it.

QuoteAlthough, saying that, I realise I haven't done a lot of actually saying why I like the film. I think it uses the tropes of the heist movie in a way they've never been used before, which considering they've been around for 60 years or so is no small achievement. It gives the viewer puzzles to think about while the action is going on, and the action is pretty damn good - Joseph Gordon-Levitt's scene is obviously the standout, but there's the final assault and the car chase too. I mean, its puzzles aren't up there with a film like Primer but then that film didn't have to go through eighteen layers of film-studio bullshit. In terms of the cinematic mainstream it's signficantly better than anyone has a right to expect in 2010, with endless remakes and reboots and reimaginings. I've always kinda liked DiCaprio, but while he was better in Shutter Island than he was in this, it's not his best work. JGL and Tom Hardy are both brilliant though, and Cillian Murphy nailed what he had.

Well I can't really fault any of your reasons for liking it!  In fact I agree with them all.

I'll get the DVD and watch it again.

But only if we're allowed to kiss and make up.

Pepotamo1985

In regard to the Batman debate previous, seriously guys, is it not possible to like the pair of them? It's like comparing...I don't know. Some hackneyed permutation amalgam of two very good but totally different things, anyway.

I didn't rate Batman Begins one iota, but The Dark Knight...as far as overblown, CGI drenched, LOUD action films go, I think it takes some beating. I found the juxtaposition of bright, crisp visuals and general bleakness compelling and even have love for Bale's Bat(e)man. In TDK you can really see Bruce Wayne going over the edge, and his righteous anger and aggression over the impending death of Rachel is truly something to behold. I thought Ledger's Joker was brill-o too, but perhaps not worth all the posthumous adulation. I didn't really buy into any of the moral quandary set pieces at all, but they still helped create the feeling of a totally amoral and hopeless situation. It's two and a half hours long, and I was dragged along to see it in the cinema no less than thrice...it managed to hold my ADDesque attention throughout on each occasion.

And stop this nonsense about the Burton Batman films. They're fucking wonderful. Burton forges an entire standalone, dark universe within which all of this stuff could feasibly occur, and thus your sense of disbelief is enthusiastically, and entirely happily, suspended. It has a cartoonish edge, but it definitely far more tangible and real than either Batman Begins or The Dark Knight, even in their whimsy and loose end flecked excesses. I used to shit myself when I was a mini Pepotamo whilst watching the baby Penguin segments.
==========

Anyway, to keep things on topic, Reservoir Dogs immediately springs to mind as one of my biggest filmic disappointments ever (admittedly, in a lifetime spent not being particularly big on films), and one that I've desperately attempted to like (naturally driven by the dogged belief that I should, in fact, like the fucking thing). I'm an absolute mark for Pulp Fiction (and Jackie Brown come to think of it), so logically it should follow that I like a rawer, embryonic incarnation of one of my favourite films, right?

Meh. Firstly, it looks painfully cheap (low budgets are not necessarily a problem as a general concept or rule, but still - it looks positively amateurish). The story is clearly written to cater to a low budget, which is fine, but then why attempt other set pieces which you'd need a bigger budget for (the car crash which results in Roth getting capped, for instance)? The dialogue isn't up to scratch (although that opening conversation is pretty great), and the violence, which was shocking at the time and is, along with Tarantino's name, the reason why it's considered so significant and notable a movie, just looks utterly tame and is totally lacking in tension. Oh, and the film mainly consists of people sitting or standing around having dull conversations the awful Tim Roth squirming around and screaming, covered in fake blood and doing a terrible American accent. Fuck Reservoir Dogs.

There are parts which are good, but still, considered in its filmic totality...no, just no. It does absolutely nothing for me.

Shoulders?-Stomach!

Quote from: Johnny Townmouse on December 17, 2010, 02:24:34 PM
Once Upon a Time in America

This film has ALL the ingrediants required for me to put it in my top ten best films of all time.

Prohibition set epic tale of small hoods and criminals. Directed by Sergio Leone, music by Ennio Morricone.
Starring Robert De Niro, James Woods, Joe Pesci and Tuesday Weld.

What could possibly go wrong? Well it just doesn't engross me, or even interest me. I find the pace and editing quite turgid, and the use of music and dubbing often grates. Some of the problems that can be seen in the Ireland sections of Fistful of Dynamite/Duck You Sucker really stand out in OUATIA. I don't know, I just find the pithy dialogue, questionable acting, and the use of zoom/soft focus/emotional music to be completely off-putting. People talk about Heaven's Gate being a flabby, poorly executed film, but I think it pissed all over Leone's effort.

I agree completely. What IS IT? How do I care about any of the events? In my opinion it's a bad film with a good film in there somewhere. A bit like Casino and Deer Hunter...

..3 really poorly directed films.

Vitalstatistix

Pssssssshhh, Casino 'really poorly directed'? Why I oughta!

Deer Hunter I'll give you, at a stretch. Some sections drag like a motherfucker.

El Unicornio, mang

I disagree about Casino, which I think is a masterpiece, both acting and directing wise, but I too find something not good about Once Upon a Time in America. There's something really cold about all of the characters, and it has a slightly unreal feel (possibly intentional?). Plus the make-up in the scenes where they're old looks terrible. It's a weird one, I've watched it a few times and I can never quite put my finger on why it doesn't work.

And  The Deer Hunter, aside from the Russian roulette scene in the middle, is excrutiatingly dull at times.

Johnny Townmouse

Quote from: Shoulders?-Stomach! on December 21, 2010, 12:47:00 PM
I agree completely. What IS IT? How do I care about any of the events? In my opinion it's a bad film with a good film in there somewhere. A bit like Casino and Deer Hunter...

..3 really poorly directed films.

Gosh and golly - I certainly would not put either of those films in the same category as the Leone dud. I think The Deer Hunter is impeccably directed, but then I happen to adore Heaven's Gate so perhaps I am just a die-hard Cimino fan, despite the fact that these days he looks like a cross between Gok Wan and Phil Spector. Casino for me is Scorsese putting together some set-pieces that were left out of Goodfellas. The desert scene with Pesci and De Niro is wonderful. It contains some truly great scenes with Sharon Stone, and has one of the most genuinely gruesome murder scenes in film history.


SavageHedgehog

I really wanted to like Heaven's Gate but I'm afraid that one did live down to its reputation for me. Really like The Deer Hunter though, it has it's faults (and much more affecting) but I think it's a lot better than Apocalypse Now. Casino I really love too, I actually like it more than Goodfellas but that's probably just because I have a thing for Vegas settings.